Reflections on webiste evaluation criteria

Introduction
A critical examination of website criteria in relation to technical, reliability and educational aspects presented in CARS (Harris,2007) and Evalutech (SREB,2010) reveals several strengths and weaknesses within a school context where teaching and learning are of paramount importance. Applying these findings to a critical evaluation of specific websites demonstrates the significance website criteria hold. This will be shown by evaluating websites relating to the effects of the atomic bomb on the people and city of Hiroshima for Year 9-10 students.

Evaluation of Criteria

The technical aspects of websites are a major concern in research by professionals such as Nielson and Loranger (2005) , Naidu,S (2005) and Sullivan, Norris and Peet (n.d.) where usability, navigability, searchability and appropriate design are shown to impact on learners. In survey results on value of websites ( Pfoeffer,P, 2002; Smith,A., 1997;Yang and Cheng, 2007)) organisation, appearance and ease of use were regarded with equal importance to content. Unfortunately the CARS criteria do not reflect any of this. The fact that research in this area concludes “children have special needs of their own” (Sullivan, Norris and Peet,n.d.) leaves CARS completely lacking in consideration of this well researched area not only for adults but also for younger audiences. Criteria relating to navigation and usability could be added to CARS as well as how engaging/entertaining the website is in relation to usability to help make web learning not just educational but also fun (Pfoeffer,P,2002). With regard to Evalutech, it is strong in providing technical criteria where not only navigation but presentation is given many sub criteria to evaluate a website against. However it is lacking in matching the abovementioned research completely in the area of ensuring usability being compatible with age of users as outlined by Pfoeffer (2002, pg11-13), with its only reference to appropriateness for the intended audience relating to legible text and print size. Both CARS and Evalutech need to include criteria on levels of digital literacy of the intended audience as outlined in Digital Literacy Across the Curriculum (Hague and Payten,2010) to determine their degree of “savvyness”(pg3) against a website allowing them to “participate meaningfully and safely” (pg3).
Professional writings concerning reliability of websites reveal the need to check authorship/authority, currency and accuracy of information (Alexander and Tate,1999; Katz,2002; Schrock, 2002 and Herring 2004) and to avoid bias (Katz,2002; Schrock, 2002). CARS provides an excellent checklist regarding these, with the heading and content of its four main criteria (credibility, accuracy, reasonableness and support) directly connected to and supporting these areas. While not so strong in areas of technical (see above) and K-12 educational aspects (as shown below), it is definitely strong here. CARS is particularly concerned with the author of websites, making note of author in each main criteria. This strengthens reliability and aids as a good reminder to choose websites with clear authorship, making it easier for students to avoid the ever increasing rate of plagiarism (Karena,C. ,2010), where it has been noted in The Australian Educator, “Widespread internet use is facilitating plagiarism.” (Karena, C., 2010, pg 34).
Evalutech is aligned very well with reliability research indicating need to avoid bias (Schrock,K,2002; Katz,2002) as well as the need to check currency, accuracy and authoritativeness (Alexander and Tate,1999; Katz,2002; Schrock, 2002 and Herring 2004). As research into website credibility grows (Boklaschuk,K and Caisse,K, 2001; Beck,S.,2002; Fogg, Soohoo and Danielson, 2002;) and guideline documents such as Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility (2004) are developed, Evalutech provides a valuable set of criteria, as it fuels the need to judge a website before considering it trustworthy. It has been stated “Information is a source of influence and power” (Eslake,S,2006) and so accurate, reliable and timely information as outlined in Evalutech’s criteria and as stated by Eslake (2006) “is vital to effective decision making in almost every aspect of the human endeavour”.
In relation to educational criteria, CARS does not make strong links to the crucial areas of teaching and learning within school contexts. It does not provide criteria to adequately judge educational content of websites in support of aides such as Bloom’s taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom and al., 1956) and Cyberguide (McLachlan, K, 2002). While providing criteria on objectiveness and truthfulness, it does not support the endeavour to analyse whether purpose of an inquiry is being met educationally in direct support of both teachers and learners (Boklaschuk and Caisse, 2001). Furthermore, whereas much has been written on importance of level of language (Schrock,2010; Osborne,H,2000; Callow,J, 2000, Herring,J. 2009), CARS does not refer to this, lacking in its applicability to judge a site against various reading levels, particularly important for K-12 learners. It may assume reading level is not an issue for the type of audience this set of criteria was written for, however even for adult learners, literacy levels can vary greatly (Measuring Literacy;Performance Levels for Adults, 2005; National Assessment for Adult Literacy, 2003).
Evalutech provides strong educational guidelines to evaluate websites as it supports the need to link websites with educational purpose of an inquiry and not just as it relates to content but also compatibility with learners’ abilities (Callow,J, 200). Including relevance to a K-12 curriculum and appropriateness with regard to content and ability of learners, aides such as Cyberguide (McLachlan,K,2002) and Bloom’s taxonomy are upheld. While it does not directly mention level of language (Schrock,2010; Osborne,H,2000; Callow,J, 2000, Herring,J. 2009), there is mention of intellectual compatibility and content/vocabulary being relevant to students’ abilities hopefully leading to specific consideration of literacy levels. Evalutech could be improved by formulating criteria directly regarding this. Both Evalutech and CARS could also include criteria on whether websites have any distracting material such as advertisements, surveys, unsuitable graphic material or unrelated links causing distraction from the overall purpose of inquiry.
Finally, CARS and Evalutech fail to provide adequate criteria addressing the affective domain, discussed by Kuhlthau (2004) in her process model and outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy. They do not provide criteria directly addressing whether or not readers are being stimulated to think at deeper levels of the affective domain into areas of intuition, convictions and beliefs to develop strong information literacy skills. Criteria to check if a website urges/prompts the audience to reflect upon information presented is needed to help learners develop new, original and meaningful understandings.



Using an analytical understanding of website criteria and applying this knowledge within a school context show just how valuable website criteria are as they help to determine whether specific websites truly reflect the teaching and learning needs of the school community. However it also reveals sets of website criteria need to be respected more as a guide and not the be all and end all of how one evaluates any particular website. They may have both weaknesses and strengths and understanding this will enable one to more accurately determine any website’s usefulness.